The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
Nails
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

CBA Debate - The use of Torture in order to prevent Nuclear Detonation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,626 times Debate No: 10486
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)

 

Johnicle

Pro

This is a CBA (Cost/Benefit Analysis) Debate with specific rules and format. If you intend to judge/compete in this debate, please read up on the general guidelines found in the first post here: http://www.debate.org... ... As you may see, the format is still up in the air so feel free to comment. Use comments 1, 6, and 9 as rules to judge and/or compete in this debate.

=====

TOPIC:

Scenario: All decently reliable leads on the plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Boston have come to an abrupt end except for a mans intelligence of the operation (for convenience shall be referred to as Jim). This man is under United States custody but refuses to give up any information about the plans that the terrorists have prepared. He even refuses presidential immunity. It is clear that these terrorists intend to use the nuclear bomb within the next 24 hours, and they have absolutely no reason to believe of any leak. It is therefore determined that the operation is a go. What is the most net-beneficial option for the welfare of America?

PRO: Initiate a torture technique to extract information from Jim to attempt prevention.
CON: Do not initiate any form of torture.

=====

BENEFITS CASE:

-Jack Bauer has been called many things in his day. Some call him ruthless, others simply call him un-killable, I, however, call him an American hero. In just a matter of years, Jack Bauer has prevented countless plots to attack America and has in the process saved millions of lives. In doing so, he has unfortunately tortured many people. He has been quoted as saying that he 'doesn't always do what is good, but he always does what is necessary.' In this debate, I implore you to compare two worlds, first one where we have men like Jack Bauer who are willing to do the necessary to save millions. Then I want you to view another world, where those millions saved now become those millions dead.

I stand in favor of 'Initiating torture techniques to extract information from "Jim" to attempt nuclear prevention' by enforcing the following "Specifics":

SPECIFICS

I. Initiate Torture Technique A: Water Boarding

II. If torture technique A is not successful preventing the nuclear explosion, initiate all means necessary to prevent the nuclear detonation.

BENEFITS

I. Effectiveness
A. Waterboarding is effective.
-From: http://science.howstuffworks.com...
- "When the CIA used the water-boarding technique on al-Qaida operative and supposed "9/11 mastermind" Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he reportedly lasted more than two minutes before confessing to everything of which he was accused. Anonymous CIA sources report that Mohammed's interrogators were impressed."

B. Claims of immorality by sources fail to see the inherent benefit.
-From: http://patterico.com...
- "Not mentioned, anywhere in the article, is the fact that recently declassified memos confirm that waterboarding KSM was key to disrupting a plot to fly airplanes into the tallest skyscraper in Los Angeles. You might think that would be something that the biggest Los Angeles newspaper would care about. You'd be wrong. The closest the paper comes to telling readers this fact is to say that in a speech, Bush said that "alternative" interrogation methods had been crucial to getting Al Qaeda operatives, including Abu Zubaydah and self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, to talk. Not good enough. What does it mean to say that we got KSM to "talk"? It means that we got him to "disclose details of massive plots against the United States." According to the intelligence community, waterboarding KSM saved thousands of lives."

II. Efficiency

A. Waterboarding quickly achieves the end goal.
-From Source I. A.
- "CIA members who've undergone water boarding as part of their training have lasted an average of 14 seconds before begging to be released. The Navy SEALs once used the technique in their counter-interrogation training, but they stopped because the trainees could not survive it without breaking, which was bad for morale."

B. Furthermore, cross apply the I. A. evidence which clearly states that information was received from "KSM" about future terrorist plots which as a result saved thousands of lives. Information, that only took 2 minutes to obtain.

---Clearly, if one of the most pronounced terrorists of the recent era could not take such pain infliction, not to mention several CIA and Navy seals, then neither would Jim. Information obtained would be received quickly, and the following end result would occur...

III. End Result- Prevention of a Nuclear Detonation in Boston
-Saving these lives, is an in-exchangeable benefit. In order for my opponent to win this debate, he/she must outweigh this undeniable truth.

-I reserve the right to add benefits until at least round 3.

I wish luck to my opponent and look forward to the establishment of CBA Debate.
Nails

Con

Since my opponent provides no definition of torture, I will offer this observation:

Water boarding is not torture.

The scenario takes place in the United States with a man under US custody. The United States Justice Department's Office of Legal Council ruled that water boarding does not constitute torture.[1][2][3]

My contention, then, is that we should not waste valuable time torturing Jim when we could be waterboarding him instead. Refer to my opponent's case about the benefits of waterboarding for warrants of waterbaording's effectiveness.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.latimes.com...
[3] http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

First I would like to express disappointment. This last post sort of wastes the point of the debate format test. Second of all, I would like to go on record that I may have mono, so my next round being posted on time is on the fence. Finally I would like to point out that my opponent is completely wrong because waterboarding is indeed torture.

DEFINITION

Torture- the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

PROOF

When the US military trains soldiers to resist interrogation, it uses a torture technique from the Middle Ages, known as "waterboarding". Its use on terror suspects in secret US prisons around the world has come to symbolise the Bush administration's no-nonsense enthusiasm for the harshest questioning techniques.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

=====

I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face...I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' "

Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.

"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke,"Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

Matthew Muller joins Chris Hitchens, Daniel Levin, and other former waterboarding apologists whose firsthand experience changed their mind.

http://waterboarding.org...

=====

Signaling sharp breaks from the Bush administration, Barack Obama's attorney general nominee declared Thursday that waterboarding is torture and that the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay will be closed as quickly as possible.

Testifying at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Eric Holder made it clear that the new administration is prepared to roll back several of the most controversial practices of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism.

http://www.politico.com...

=====

"CIA members who've undergone water boarding as part of their training have lasted an average of 14 seconds before begging to be released. The Navy SEALs once used the technique in their counter-interrogation training, but they stopped because the trainees could not survive it without breaking, which was bad for morale."

(From Case)

=====

It's time for my opponent and the Bush Administration to get over their opinions and face facts that waterboarding is indeed torture. There are really 2 parts to the definition 1) Pain (drowing causes both mental and physical pain) and 2) getting information (waterboarding's goal).

My opponent therefore used the only solution he was not allowed to use and therefore loses.
Nails

Con

This debate is turning into a definitional argument. The original intention was to get PRO to defend a real torture technique instead of suggesting waterboarding as a proper example of torture. Instead, he has dedicated R2 answering the definition of torture.

PRO did say:
"I reserve the right to add benefits until at least round 3"

Hopefully he will applies this and give some actual benefits of torture in R3 instead of just continuing this argumentation about waterboarding being torture.

===================
Waterboarding is Not Torture
===================

I defined torture in accordance with the United States Department of Justice, whereas his definition is from www.dictionary.com.

You should prefer the U.S. definition for multiple reasons:

1. The scenario specifies the constraints on action of a US resident, Jack Bauer. Jack Bauer, being an American citizen and not a Dictionarydotcommian citizen is bound only by US rulings on torture, not those of dictionary.com.

2. The man who is to be tortured is in United States custody, thus what happens to him and what is allowed to happen to him is dictated by the United States, not by Dictionary.com, LLC.[1]

3. The action is to take place in Boston, which is located in the United States. This makes the United States definition the geographically most correct one because it is specified for dealing with the United States. Dictionary.com uses multiple dictionaries from around the globe and does not specify a particular country or dialect for which it is designed[1].

4. The scenario in question deals with an issue of legality and therefore should use a legal definition (1) because Jack Bauer is a law enforcement officer[2], (2) because the resolution is a question of United States policy, and (3) because internet sources only hold ground in defining a term so long as they are popular, whereas legal definitions have the power of the government enforcing them, thus being the only ones that could actually command an action be taken. Using some internet site and then claiming fiat from this source's authority is nonsensical.

5. The United States Department of Justice's definition is not in direct contradiction to my opponent's definition, rather it is a specification of what is qualified to fall under that definition. There is not good reason to prefer PRO's particular interpretation over the Department of Justice's (1) because my opponent is far less qualified to discuss torture and (2) because of the 4 reasons given above, indicating that the US government ought to have the final authority on these definitions.

6. Dictionary.com has multiple acceptable interpretations (10 of them!) of the definition of the word 'torture'[3] from which my opponent can cherry-pick his favorite for defending his case, rather than choosing the most appropriate one. The US government only has one ruling on what constitutes torture, using my interpretation of torture guarantees a lack of abuse on the parts of the debaters.

7. My opponent provided his definition new in the second round, whereas mine was given in round 1. By not clarifying what torture (an integral part of the resolution) meant, he forfeited the right to me to define the terms of the debate. By not defining it, then contesting the definition that I give, he allows me to accept the debate under false premises of what we are debating. Had he given such a definition of torture in round 1, I very well might not have accepted this debate.

For these reasons you prefer the US legal definition of torture, which precludes waterboarding, the central point of this case so far, thus he has met no burden of proof.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

It seems my opponent is sticking to his guns and so am I. I truly believe that waterboarding is torture. Thus this debate has come down to who wins the argument that waterboarding is/isn't torture.

First I would like to go back to my opponents first round sources. One of which is wikipedia. This is where he got his definition in the first place. Well later in the article, the following quotes can be found:

1. "During his tenure as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2003-2004, Jack Goldsmith put a halt to the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique because of serious concern over its legality, but Goldsmith's order was quickly reversed by others within the Bush administration"

2. "In May 2008 the author and journalist Christopher Hitchens voluntarily underwent waterboarding and concluded that it was torture. He also noted that he has suffered ongoing psychological effects from the ordeal."

3. "On January 15, 2009 the U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, told his Senate confirmation hearing that waterboarding is torture and the President cannot authorize it. In a press conference on April 30, President Obama also stated, "I believe waterboarding was torture, and it was a mistake"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

---My opponent has failed to see that the reason the Justice Department classified waterboarding as legal was simply because of serious corruption in the Bush Administration. Now, however, under the Obama administration, you can expect prosectution for forcing someone to be waterboarded. The new administration's stance, including that of the Attorney General, outdates my opponents "definition".

4. Citizens have been prosecuted in the past for waterboarding.
--- "In 1947, a Japanese soldier who used water boarding against a U.S. citizen during World War II was sentenced to 15 years in U.S. prison for committing a war crime."

5. Other U.S. offices labeled waterboarding illegal simultaneously with Bush's legalization.
--- "The U.S. Department of Defense made it illegal for any member of the U.S. military to use the water-boarding technique. The CIA and its interrogators were unaffected by that new policy, as the CIA is not a branch of the U.S. military."

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

6. The CIA and Bush may still recieve prosecution for their legalization of torture.
--- "President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terrorism-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics."

7. The process of creating my opponents definition were done un-American and was not done in favor of the majority.
--- "This administration did more than commit crimes. It waged war against the law itself. It transformed the Justice Department into a vehicle for voter suppression, and it also summarily dismissed the U.S. attorneys who attempted to investigate its wrongdoing. "
http://www.harpers.org...

Therefore, my opponents arguments 1-4 fall.

QUOTE FROM HIS 5TH ARGUMENT: " the US government ought to have the final authority on these definitions."
-->The final authority is that waterboarding is torture and that anyone who forcibly practices it will be prosecuted.

Argument 6 he claimed that I cherry-picked my definition. Well I urge my opponent to cherry-pick a definition back since waterboarding applies to them all (10 of them!)

Furthermore, higher authorities constitute waterboarding as torture.
--- According to Article 7, Section 2, Part E of the Rome Statute (that governs the actions of the International Criminal Court), ""Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions"
-----Therefore, in the case of the resolution, it is torture since no sanctions have been placed on Jim. Furthermore, I don't think that any argument can be placed on the severe pain portion of the definition since my argument that waterboarding is forced drowning went dropped (this shows that it isn't just simply simulated drowning.)
---Another International Law known as the Geneva Convention is also disreguarded while using waterboarding. In essence, there is consequence to using waterboarding because it is torture.

Against his 7th argument, it really has no bearing. My definition really isn't that abusive ("the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.") Not to mention the fact that he KNEW he was getting into a debate where pro assumed waterboarding as torture! If anyone should be punished for this becoming a definition debate, it should be my opponent.

I urge the judges to prefer the pro position for the following reasons,

1) The ONLY argument he attacked of mine is my definition of torture.
2) My interpretations, real life expiriences, and applications of why waterboarding is torture go unattacked (feel free to flow through my entire 2nd round since none of these point get attacked (except for the definition)).
3) He offers absolutely no direct reasons WHY waterboarding is not torture (look at his arguments, they are simply a definition and why he believes me to be wrong. He has no offense.)
4) Con accepted this debate and therefore should have accepted the implied terms.
5) He can not get any person who has undergone waterboarding to admit that it is not torture (I have countless pieces of evidence that show people trying to prove it's not torture by doing it themself. These people now agree with me that it is torture. I challenge my opponent to find a counter-example, EVEN if it is just 1.)

Thanks
Nails

Con

Unfortunately, I am very low on time, so I won't have time to fully address my opponent's arguments. I suppose I will have to concede that water-boarding is considered torture. I think my side of the argument is still winnable, but my opponent has made multiple effective arguments that I don't think I can do justice to if I try to cover them in the 30 minutes I have left. I guess I'll have to let the definitional argument go to PRO.

PRO has not capitalized on his ability to post new costs/benefits until round 3, but I suppose I will.

==============================
=COST: Torture leads to inaccurate information=
==============================

Read any of PRO's arguments. Waterboarding is incredibly painful and incredibly effective at eliciting information. People will do anything to stop the torture. This includes lying.[1]

We can never trust torture because people will say anything to make it stop. People confessed to being witches during witch trials and Jews or Muslims during the Inquisition.

"decently reliable leads on the plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Boston have come to an abrupt end except for a mans intelligence of the operation"

All we know is that from 'decently reliable leads' that this man probably has 'intelligence of the operation.' Because of the possibility of being caught, it is very unstrategic for terrorists to divulge the entirety of their plan to any one member. Only knowing the above information, there is little to nothing we can actually conclude about Jim's knowledge. Torturing him is sure to elicit a response, PRO's evidence proves that much, but we would be wasting valuable time following the leads that Jim gives.

We can't know what Jim knows. There is nothing at all to guarantee, for example, that Jim would know the location of the bomb. We don't know whether he knows the names of the other terrorists involved. We don't know if he knows how the bomb works. Because of this utter uncertainty, there is no way we can trust his intelligence. The excrutiating pain that torture brings guarantees that he will give some response to alleviate the pain, but without first knowing that he has knowledge of the plot to begin with, we have no way to know whether this forced confession is accurate or just a suffering soul's method of self-preservation.

Because of this, torture equates to little more than a waste of time.
[1] http://www.tampabay.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for at least posting something. I'm going to treat this round as a summary and simultaneously argue my opponents last speech. Each point will offer a new reason to vote pro.

1. My opponents case is literally identical to mine and since he forfeited the definition debate, he has no benefits whatsoever.
---From CON Round 1
--- "My contention, then, is that we should not waste valuable time torturing Jim when we could be waterboarding him instead. Refer to my opponent's case about the benefits of waterboarding for warrants of waterbaording's effectiveness."
-This could have been treated as an independent argument to be made outside of his case, but he instead puts all of his eggs in one basket and mirrors my case as his own. Forfeiting the definition forfeited his case which in turn forfeited his benefits. At least by voting pro you have the chance at stopping the nuke whereas voting con presents no method whatsoever of preventing the nuke. This leaves me with the ultimate benefit of decreasing the chance of the nuclear explosion verses his absence of a case which offers no alternative. Therefore, even if you accept all of his last round arguments, you still vote pro.

2. His effectiveness arguments in round 3 are mislead and untrue.

A. He agreed with my case and the warrants for its effectiveness.
---From CON Round 1
--- "Refer to my opponent's case about the benefits of waterboarding for warrants of waterbaording's effectiveness."

B. My effectiveness evidence outweighs his through real life examples.
---(Cross-Apply) PRO Round 1 Benefits

====================
-From: http://science.howstuffworks.com......
- "When the CIA used the water-boarding technique on al-Qaida operative and supposed "9/11 mastermind" Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he reportedly lasted more than two minutes before confessing to everything of which he was accused. Anonymous CIA sources report that Mohammed's interrogators were impressed."

-From: http://patterico.com......
- "Not mentioned, anywhere in the article, is the fact that recently declassified memos confirm that waterboarding KSM was key to disrupting a plot to fly airplanes into the tallest skyscraper in Los Angeles. You might think that would be something that the biggest Los Angeles newspaper would care about. You'd be wrong. The closest the paper comes to telling readers this fact is to say that in a speech, Bush said that "alternative" interrogation methods had been crucial to getting Al Qaeda operatives, including Abu Zubaydah and self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, to talk. Not good enough. What does it mean to say that we got KSM to "talk"? It means that we got him to "disclose details of massive plots against the United States." According to the intelligence community, waterboarding KSM saved thousands of lives."

-The KSM example shows that even the most dedicated terrorists can break and give reliable information.
====================

C. Waterboarding does not inflict permanent physical damage. Meaning that when the interrogators stop, the only thing that Jim would fear is being forced back into the same process or one that is worse. This offers a great incentive for reliable information to be given. Furthermore, seeing as technology provides quick response capabilities, quick information could be obtained to legitimize the validity of the information obtained. This hope provided, is substantially greater than the no other alternative provided by CON.

3. His only evidence that gives any weight to the unreliable information, is an opinion "letter to the editor" newspaper column. The man claims to be a retired CIA intelligence analyst, however it is this mans word against the threat of a nuclear explosion.

4. My opponents dropped case creates a new cost. Guaranteed nuclear explosion. He has no case (therefore no benefits), and he creates the ultimate cost. He can not win.

Look, I applaud my opponents attempt to pull this round out from nothing. But every round he pulls his position in a new direction. He ought not be rewarded for this. He rarely addressed my arguments directly and therefore never showed why any of my arguments are wrong. In fact, he agreed with my case and agreed with my definition. There has yet to be an argument of mine that he has not agreed with. Simply enough, there is nothing he can say in Round 4 to award him the win. I do thank him for this debate and look forward to his final attempt to find a way to defeat me in his next round. Especially since he can't use new arguments.

Good Luck, and thanks for the debate.
Nails

Con

My opponent in the last round seemed rather condescending of my argument. I'll assume it was purely unintentional and nothing malicious on PRO's part, but the problem still remains. He has dismissed my previous post as frivolous and inconsequential when it isn't and he has failed to rebut my case.

::Rebuttal::

1. "he has no benefits whatsoever"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this debate was to be a cost-benefit analysis of the action perscribed by the resolution. PRO was to provide the benefits, I was to provide the costs. I did outline a cost in my last speech.

2. He is only posting the evidence that he has already posted in round 1. This is completely nonresponsive to my case. My argument is not that 'Waterboarding won't extract the proper information.' My argument is that 'This Jim dude probably doesn't know anything.'

3. By all means, disregard that evidence if you want. It is purely analytical and doesn't necessarily require a source: Jim can't give his torturers information he doesn't have.

::Summary::

PRO has proved that waterboarding is very effective in eliciting a confession.
(I have not rebutted this)

CON has proved that Jim probably does not have the correct information to confess.
(PRO has not rebutted this)

Thus, we reach the conclusion that torturing Jim will lead to unreliable information that, more likely than not, would lead us to a dead end if followed. This is a major waste of time.

What we should do instead of wasting our time on this frivolous pursuit I do not know for sure, for I am not in the CIA.
-Perhaps, we should evacuate the city?
-Try alternative methods of interrogation on Jim?
-Ask all the citizens of Boston to search for the bomb in their local area? 600,000[1] heads are better than 1.
-Explore new potential suspects involved with the plot

Regardless of what the specific alternative is, I have met my burden in justifying a vote CON, which is showing that the harms of torture (probable unreliable information) outweigh the benefits (a forced confession) and thus you vote CON.

[1] http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Sources: PRO
Arguments: CON

CON's single cost went dropped, which was that following torture leads would most likely be a waste of time. I don't buy that the nuclear explosion is inevitable without torture, as there are surely other things we could plausibly do to stop the explosion.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
It's looking unlikely that I'll win the debate, but as for following a cost/benefit analysis, I certainly provided a cost. Like you said, "All the information provided by the terrorist can be checked." Unfortunately, we have to waste time checking it. We don't have terrorist info readily available to check it against or we wouldn't need to torture him in the first place.

I haven't voted yet, but I'd be more inclined to vote against myself based on the argument you alluded to that there might not be another option but to allow the bomb to go off.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Con was way off base attacking the definition of waterboarding. The opening statement made it clear that if waterboarding did not work, then the next step would be to use something more horrific, perhaps repeatedly playing Obama's campaign speeches promising "hope and change."

It's quite clear that waterboarding sometimes works. KSM initially demanded a New York lawyer and refused to say anything. After waterboarding, he dumped his rolodex, including revelation of the plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. All the information provided by the terrorist can be checked, if he lies then he is subjected to more waterboarding. The cost is that a terrorist is to some degree tortured, and the benefit is that there is at least some potential of saving millions of lives. Con never came to grips with the cost/benefit analysis. The opening statement made it clear that the debate was about cost/benefits. Some argument could be made that there were broader costs in terms of undermining principles of justice or something, but Con didn't make them effectively.

The general situation is called "the ticking time bomb problem." Liberal jurist Alan Dershowitz persuasively argues that torture ought to require a court order upon showing of cause, and that to not torture isin some circumstances immoral.
Posted by Protagoras 7 years ago
Protagoras
Agree before: PRO
After: CON
Conduct: Tie.
Spelling and grammar: Tie.

Convincing: CON. Not because of definitions, but because of the arg. that torture leads to unreliable information which wastes time. Assuming pro is right and we do get info., that info. doesn't matter if its wrong.

Most reliable source: Tie. Pro had more sources and executed them well, but that doesn't make them "more reliable". I don't think point should be awarded here.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I used that same quote in my case.
I unfortunately just noticed that somebody dropped a 7-bomb for no apparent reason. Oh well.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
It was a fun debate even though it was mostly definitional. Although I didn't interpret your last stand argument correctly because I assumed that the story in the first round sort of hinted that he had intelligence.

"all decently reliable leads on the plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Boston have come to an abrupt end except for a mans intelligence of the operation"
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I wish I hadn't forgotten about this debate. I think winning the definitional debate would have been a much easier route to take if I had enough time.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Tied

S/G: Tied

Arguments: Pro - Once Con conceded the definition debate, there was nothing he could do. As Pro easily explained, Con's Round 1 argument explicitly advocates waterboarding. Con can't come back from that without contradicting himself. Con agreed to Pro's benefits, offered new arguments late in the debate, and ultimately set himself up for that huge contradiction in the endgame.

Sources: Pro - Pro used his sources masterfully, getting Con to agree to the benefits, and hammering Con to the point of concession on the definition debate, even if "time ran out".
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
1 minute, 22 seconds left when I submitted this. Close call.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I accepted this debate planning to have a debate on torture, its effectiveness, etc. When I started researching waterboarding, though, most information was in the form of debates over whether it could be classified as torture. At best it would marginally 'fit within the boundaries of the resolution,' and I tend to agree with the goverment's ruling that it isn't torture.

Also, we can apparently add new arguments until round 3 so there's plenty of time for PRO to talk about some other form of torture or me to use the Spanish Inquisition as an example. My goal isn't to win on a semantic argument over waterboarding. I just don't want PRO to cop out of an actual debate on torture by only defending waterboarding.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by xoxo_rawr_xoxo 7 years ago
xoxo_rawr_xoxo
JohnicleNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by ricky78 7 years ago
ricky78
JohnicleNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
JohnicleNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
JohnicleNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Protagoras 7 years ago
Protagoras
JohnicleNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
JohnicleNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50